The Design of Morphological/ Linguistic Data in L1 and L2 Monolingual, Explanatory Dictionaries: A Functional and/or Linguistic Approach? P.H. Swanepoel, Departement Afrikaans en Literatuurwetenskap, Unisa, Pretoria, Suid-Afrika ([email protected]) Abstract: The contributions in Klosa (2013a) provide information on various aspects of the design of morphological data for (German) language dictionaries. Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013), however, reject most of these contributions as sources lexicographers could use for the design of language dictionaries because they are guided by linguistic theory (cf. their critique of Klosa 2013b), instead of Function Theory, and by a misguided application of methods for user research, (cf. their critique of Töpel's 2013 use of the questionnaire as method for user research). The first goal of this article is to provide a critical discussion of Bergenholtz and Gouws's (2013) views on the approach of Function Theory to the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of the design of morphological/linguistic data in L1/L2 (language) dictionaries. It is argued that the approach of Function Theory provides lexicographers only with a usable overview of the design trends in printed and electronic dictionaries for the selection and presentation of morphological/ linguistic data in dictionaries, but that the theoretical, methodological and practical approach of Function Theory is fraught with difficulties. The strategy Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013) use to debunk the linguistic approach to lexicography is not new; it is a well-known strategy used in the rhetoric of Function Theory. The second goal of this article is therefore to point out some of the general problems with a Function Theory of lexicography for the planning, production and pub- lishing of language dictionaries. Given the problems with the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of Function Theory, it does not offer a viable alternative to the linguistic approach to the design of morphological/linguistic data in L1/L2 (language) dictionaries. It is argued that linguistic lexicography provides lexicographers with access to a vast body of theoretical, meth- odological and practical research to support the design of morphological data in L1/L2 (language) dictionaries. Furthermore, it is argued that Function Theory has established the importance of functional variables in the design of (language) dictionaries, but that what lexicography needs now is a truly multidisciplinary approach to lexicography, and not an approach that reduces lexicogra- phy to the status of a hand-maiden of another discipline, for example, information science, or of a reductionist Function Theory of lexicography. Keywords: FUNCTION THEORY OF LEXICOGRAPHY, LINGUISTIC THEORY OF LEXICOGRAPHY, THEORETICAL, METHODOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF Lexikos 25 (AFRILEX-reeks/series 25: 2015): 353-386 354 P.H. Swanepoel LEXICOGRAPHY, THE DESIGN OF MORPHOLOGICAL DATA, THE DESIGN OF LINGUISTIC DATA Opsomming: Die ontwerp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in eentalige, verklarende L1- en L2-woordeboeke: 'n Funksionele en/of linguistiese bena- dering? Die artikels in Klosa (2013a) bied inligting oor verskeie aspekte van die ontwerp van morfologiese data in (Duitse) taalwoordeboeke. Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013) verwerp egter die meeste van die bydraes vir leksikografiese doeleindes omdat hulle steun op linguistiese teorie(ë) (sien hulle kritiek op Klosa 2013b), in plaas van die Funksieteorie, en 'n foutiewe toepassing van metodes vir gebruikersnavorsing (sien hulle kritiek van Töpel 2013 se gebruik van die vraelys as metode vir gebruikersnavorsing). Die eerste doelstelling van hierdie artikel is om 'n kritiese ont- leding te gee van Bergenholtz en Gouws (2013) se siening van die Funksieteoretiese benadering tot die teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese aspekte van die ontwerp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in L1/L2 (taal-) woordeboeke. Daar word aangevoer dat die Funksieteoretiese benadering net vir leksikograwe 'n bruikbare oorsig oor die ontwerprigtings in gedrukte en elektroniese woorde- boeke vir die keuse en aanbieding van morfologiese/linguistiese data bied. Verder, dat die gebruik van die Funksieteorie as teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese basis vir die leksikografie teen aller- lei probleme stuit. Die strategie wat Bergenholtz en Gouws (2013) gebruik in hulle kritiek op die linguistiese benadering tot die leksikografie is nie nuut nie, maar 'n bekende strategie van die reto- rika van Funksieteorie. Die tweede doel van hierdie artikel is dus om sommige van die algemene probleme van die Funksieteorie vir die beplanning, produksie en publikasie van woordeboeke aan te toon. Gegee hierdie probleem met die teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese aspekte van die Funksieteorie, bied dit nie 'n lewensvatbare alternatief vir die linguistiese benadering tot die ont- werp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in L1/L2 (taal-) woordeboeke nie. Daar word aangevoer dat leksikograwe in die linguistiese leksikografie toegang het tot 'n omvattende bron van teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese navorsing om die ontwerp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in L1/L2 (taal-) woordeboeke te ondersteun. Verder word aangevoer dat die Funksieteorie die belang van die funksionele veranderings in die ontwerp van (taal-) woordeboeke gevestig het, maar wat nou nodig is, is 'n waarlik multidisiplinêre benadering en nie een waarin die leksikografie gereduseer word tot die dienskneg van 'n ander dissipline, soos die inligtingskunde, of tot 'n reduksionistiese Funksieteorie van leksikografie nie. Sleutelwoorde: FUNKSIETEORIE VAN LEKSIKOGRAFIE, LINGUISTIESE TEORIE VAN LEKSIKOGRAFIE, TEORETIESE, METODOLOGIESE EN PRAKTIESE ASPEKTE VAN LEKSIKO- GRAFIE, DIE ONTWERP VAN MORFOLOGIESE DATA, DIE ONTWERP VAN LINGUISTIESE DATA 1. Introduction Lexicographers tasked with the design (selection and presentation) of the mor- phological data (abbreviated to: MD) for an explanatory, monolingual first lan- guage (abbreviated to: L1) or a second/foreign language (abbreviated to: L2) dictionary usually have a number of recent resources at their disposal for this endeavour: existing dictionaries, grammars, lexicographic manuals, research The Design of Morphological/Linguistic Data 355 material, corpora etc. The same applies to designers of the MD for a L1/L2 German language dictionary; most articles in Klosa (2013a), for example, focus on various aspects of the lexicographic selection and representation of MD in the planning, compilation and production of such dictionaries. Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013: 60), however, criticise a number of the contributions on MD in Klosa (2013a) against the tenets and practices of Func- tional Theory as being — theoretically misguided, by using a linguistic theory of MD and linguistic definitions of morphological terms as point of departure for the design of MD in dictionaries — methodologically misguided, by using a typical method of empirical research but without adhering to basic criteria for such methods, viz. that a sample of representative respondents is to be selected randomly to be able to generalise the findings of such research and that the questions posed to respondents should be linguistically interesting and not those dictated by the tenets of FT (cf. Bergenholtz and Gouws 2013: 60-61; and, specifically, their critique of Töpel's 2013 questionnaire methodology) — practically misguided, as current designs of the MD in dictionaries, espe- cially in the case of printed language dictionaries, do not optimally sup- port the access to and comprehension of MD in these dictionaries (cf. Ber- genholtz and Gouws's 2013: 61-70 lengthy discussion of the selection and presentation of MD in printed and electronic dictionaries and where MD can be presented in dictionaries), and because they produce polyfunc- tional dictionaries. The FT alternative that Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013: 60-61) propose for the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of what will be called a lin- guistic approach to lexicography (abbreviated to: LL) can be summarised in the following well-known tenets of the Function Theory of Lexicography (again a term coined for that article, and which is abbreviated to: FTL): — that the design of the MD of L1/ L2 dictionaries should theoretically be determined by the (morphological) information needs which specific types of users may have in specific types of situations or contexts of language use (prime attention being devoted in FT to the communicative functions/ situations of text production, text reception, and translation, and the cog- nitive function of language learning/acquisition) (cf. Bergenholtz and Gouws 2013: 61; also Tarp 2014: 62); — (albeit implicitly) that the methodology of both theoretical and practical lexicography should be determined by the FTL approach to issues of theory and methodology; and — that any dictionary should ideally be monofunctional, that is, support only one function, and provide users with only the data (no more and no less; 356 P.H. Swanepoel cf. Tarp 2014: 63) they might need for the solution of only one type of communicative or cognitive problem (cf. Bergenholtz and Gouws 2013: 60- 61; 70-74) so that MD should be easily accessible for users and that they should be able to comprehend the MD presented. Bergenholtz and Gouws's (2013) critique of LL is not new. It is argued that the FT campaign against the theory, methodology and practical design of MD in LL is in fact only symptomatic of the general effort of